Rachel Meade - it's a win!

In order to be part of their schemes and receive the golden opinions of Stonewall firms have to chant the mantras, disabuse other staff from thinking or saying anything contrary to the Stonewall mantra and implement policies and practices in line with Stonewall advice.

Stonewall advice is, and has been proven to be on many occasions, outside the Law as it stands and in breach of the EQA, therefore imo Stonewall are culpable surely?

Although, firms, public sector institutions, etc., who are stupid enough to not do due diligence on the advice they are receiving from Stonewall because they are more interested in having a shiny Stonewall certificate deserve everything they get when it all goes awry.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-right-to-be-gender-critical/

Michael Foran’s article about this in the Critic discusses the holding and manifestation of a belief.

https://thecritic.co.uk/bad-law-project/

Woolton | Wolton and the documentation and complaint without the courtesy of talking to RM is very disturbing and I'd be very sorry to think that Sport England signed up for this when they made this appointment.

I wrote this on the Bragg thread but it's applicable here to Wolton and those who think this is any way to treat colleagues/friends or to run an effective workplace rather than one where people must be apprehensive of saying anything. In retrospect, Woolton has more than a touch of Allison Bailey's SWP-history roommate in chambers, David Renton (the one who made notes about her phone calls and reported them).

I'm tempted to branch out into whether BB realises that he's straying far from the path Justice Julian Knowles outlined when he declared (in re: Miller): “In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

Yet, here BB is. Monitoring MN to find material for disapproval and witch-finding. Labelling MN as Nazi while refusing to link, using dubious screenshots, and positively encouraging an Orwellian society and his own persona Cheka and Stasi-like reporting mechanisms. (I'm thinking of the infamous claim that 1 in 6 people in East Germany were reporting on their neighbours. Some say it was 1 in 60. However, it seems the Stasi had files on 5.6M people.)

Jo Maugham, part of the Good Law Project who have pursued a series of unsuccessful, vexatious legal cases, and who posted a bizarre tweet claiming to have killed a fox with a baseball bat, while (iirc) wearing his wife's kimono.

They could try. If it could be proved that Stonewall had a duty of care which was breached it might be successful.

@IcakethereforeIam @Froodwithatowel That is an interesting question. When one sells goods and services there is a duty under contract and Torte law, to deliver said service with reasonable care and skill.

so if a company gets in trouble in employment law based on purchased advice then in theory the company could seek damages

I cannot imagine anybody would bother though.

Probably just get rid of them

Brilliant news, I saw this earlier on LinkedIn and it is just…😁’chef’s kiss’!

But poor Rachel going through this for so long.

As for someone quietly noting down comments from a ‘friend’s’ private social media and then reporting them to their professional regulator, well…we are but a telescreen away from living in fear of the Thought Police.

I have noticed that a readiness to weaponise official processes is a trademark of those who adhere to identity politics.

We've yet to see that tested. But we have seen Stonewall shrug in court and say they can tell their clients any old bollocks and if the clients don't bother to check it and work out for themselves that it's illegal it's nothing to do with them gov.

Who is the Fox Botherer?

Could any of the clients Stonewall advised have grounds to sue if that advice led them into legal difficulty? I suspect that advice comes with disclaimers, caveat emptor and all that, but I don't believe this is a bullet proof way of keeping out of the legal weeds.

Absolutely this ^^ is who should be held accountable for the untold damage (and growing) being done to young vulnerable people.

And aside from the lack of tolerance for diversity this shows, and the clear inability of this person to respect all protected characteristics (which should make them unqualified for their role), why would you want someone who goes out of their way to report on supposed 'friends' in this Stasi-like way in your organisation? Everyone will be watching their back, the atmosphere must be awful.

Yes I agree on this

None are ‘dopey’

They have bern severely let down by the adults who promote this ideology though and disallow other outcomes

Imagine trying to argue for fairness for women in sport at Sport England with them hovering in the background waiting to report every perceived wrongthink to the bosses. No wonder women's sports have been so easily dismantled in favour of men.

The Fox Botherer definitely has a dopey 'trans kid'

This is a very unkind comment. Of the many trans identifying kids that I know, none are ‘dopey’.

Most are on the spectrum and feel ‘other’ for one reason or another. Many struggle with wider issues.

ALL have been severely let down by the responsible adults who should have either better supported them or worked to limit the influence of others with a darker agenda when they started questioning their identity.

“Disappointing from a Diversity Champion.”

But entirely on brand for a trans activist.

It really is like the Stasi. I've been thinking that.

'Diversity' obviously doesn't include diversity of thought or opinion for this person. So not really qualified for the job them's doing is they?

Problem is that these outcomes don’t often make mainstream news. There’s too little awareness of the Forstater judgement. Certainly hasn’t reached HE more widely despite higher profile cases.

He knew her personally and still complained to her regulating body instead of having a reasoned discussion with her? We really are reaching Stasi level spying on family and neighbours. Disappointing from a Diversity Champion.

So happy to read this (retired SW)

so looking at the judgment, am I right in thinking that the council apologised but social work england just said they're reviewing things (threat to appeal the decision, no apology to Rachel, etc?)
And also, that the judgment is a not very thinly veiled warning to institutions adopting stonewall propaganda as the actual
law of the country? It's very cleverly written; it seems to be a very resounding criticism of organisations adopting stonewall sound bites as the literal truth, instead of following the word of the law/the equality act?

It is unequivocal that having another opinion to the change in law that lobbies such as Stonewall would like to see, is not 'hate' or 'Naziism' or in any way unacceptable, and to press views of it as such is 'harassment'.

And that people have a right to freedom of expression, and there is not a special protected unequal status for those on one side of the debate that is not reciprocally extended.

<Insert large impotent rage here>

Idk about the Bailey case but even if Stonewall are not directly liable decent HR for their clients will want to avoid pay outs and hopefully reassess using them

Rachel shows what can happen, I hope it’s big chunk of money

Suck on that, Social Work England.